Hacker News Reader

Comment by beezischillin | Hacker News Reader

You're right. It was relatively easy for the US to create those companies as it in itself is a huge market with lots of people who, at least, theoretically share a large cultural identity. We don't really have it here so often Germans market to Germans, the people of the UK to the UK, etc.

I'm very concerned, especially as the future is involved, that my personal freedoms necessitate billion dollar corporations to lobby in my (and their) best interests. I don't know why I get informed on the issues that I care about and affect me and then go and do my civic duty and vote according to my conscience, then. And that's scary.

The US is incredibly lucky to have been founded on an idea that the government is for the people and not vice versa (even though, I will readily admit that the US itself is kind of an imperfect example at the moment, it's the best I see).

View on HN

Just remember this crap next time anybody spouts bullshit about democracy.

It's hard to convince people that the Federal government in the USA is not really democratic in nature because media companies make billions of dollars in revenue off of every election and it's in their interest to propagandize it as much as possible.

But in the EU it should be easy to convince people it's just smoke and mirrors and that the central government only represents moneyed interests due to just how far removed it is from any and all oversight by individuals living in the EU. It's a lot more obvious in Europe that even if you got 10 million people to agree with you and sign papers and send letters the central EU government is going to be unaffected and won't really care a whole lot.

The only way to cause any change in behavior in government bureaucrats is to impact them directly and individually financially.

But since it's illegal to not pay your taxes there isn't much you can do.

Every EU law needs the approval of a majority of directly elected MEPs. They are up for reelection in May. Of course one can influence their behavior.

in theory. eu parliament elections are no different than national elections: they are partisan and considered a gauge of the general elections and usually it becomes a dumping place for former national politicians. there is a huge disconnect between MEPs and citizens of their country. practically only lobby groups can be bothered and have the opportunity to lobby their causes. i have not heard (or told) a single word about gdpr or this new regulation from our MEPs. i very much doubt most of them know what they are voting for

All i read in your post is "citizens don't care". Every democracy will fail if citizens don't care. And I understand its natural to care less about stuff further away. But we need to organize some way how to live together, with democracy least bad option we have. We better make it work somehow.

Its fair to say that the EU is not generally seen as a big democracy, but as a large administration that lives in the background, kind of like NATO or the UN, so people don't expect to engage in EU politics in the same way they do with national politics. It is more problematic for example that the reasons why with the EC is proposing the laws are not clear, rather than why the MEPs voted for them.

The average voter knows even less about how the EU works than they do about their own country. The press rarely covers EU business, except for ECB policy.

People treat them as some sort of low stakes national election and they generally penalize the governing party (let's send them a message) and the small parties get a boost. They have no idea which parties/coalitions exist at the European level and where the national party they're voting for fits.

In sum, it's a big joke, to an even larger extent than democratic elections usually are (as argued in books such as Democracy and Political Ignorance or Against Democracy).

Some of that is due to the national press (the UK for example has a disgraceful sector, the result of a classist society unbefitting of a modern country); some to voters who have forgotten the lessons of the past. Democracy, like most of civilization, has to be earnt anew every day.

> Every EU law needs the approval of a majority of directly elected MEPs.

The problem with this is that MEPs are elected generally rather than for a specific competency, and then you get stuck choosing between different types of foolishness.

To use an example from the US, the Democrats have generally been the party of Hollywood and proposed a lot of problematic copyright legislation, and a lot of bureaucratic means-tested social assistance programs and loan interest subsidies that do things like inflate housing, medical and education costs. On the other hand, the Republicans have a preposterous position on climate change and the current Republican-controlled FCC is more like Verizon-controlled. So who should I vote for if I want to have a carbon tax but get rid of DMCA 1201?

A solution to this might be something like voters electing representatives on a per-committee basis, but that isn't currently what happens.

> So who should I vote for if I want to have a carbon tax but get rid of DMCA 1201?

You make sure there are opposing parties. Like the house and senate controlled by different parties. It forces them to argue and fight and compromise, but the end results are better.

Seems more like the end-result is serious problems don't get addressed and only the worst laws get passed.

This seems mostly like a fallacy of the mean. The compromise between two positions is not necessarily the best, and may be worse than either of the two.

Compromise is a necessary part of any democratic system, but because it is necessary to represent all of the constituants and balance their needs. It does not mean that it results in better decisions on any particular issue nor does it provide a good way for an individual to get a cross-section of their viewpoints represented fairly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com